Ram Chandra Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 11685 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ram Chandra Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 17 October, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:186922
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
WRIT - A No. - 4527 of 2020   
 
   Ram Chandra Chaudhary    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 5 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
B.S. Pandey   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 34
 
   
 
 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.      

1. Heard Mr. B.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents.

2. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits, thus, with the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was initially posted as a lekhpal on 23.12.1982 and his services was confirmed in the year December 1983 and was superannuated on 31.10.2019, however, post retirement, an order came to be passed on 13.03.2020 by the Tehsildar, Harraiya, District Basti, fourth respondent making a recovery of amount of Rs. 40,016/- which according to the respondent was paid in excess and the the same was not entitled to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner thereafter preferred the present writ petition for quashing of the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the fourth respondent and mandamus was commanding the respondents to pay the petitioner's GPF, Gratuity, Group Insurance, 40% Pension Rashikaran and regular pension along with arrears of enhancement made in the salary and D.A. for 2016-17.

4. This Court entertained the writ petition on 22.06.2020, wherein the following orders have been passed:

"The grievance of the petitioner is two fold, the first is that he retired on 30.10.2019 but has not been paid his G.P.F., gratuity, group insurance, 40% commuted value of the petitioner's pension and his monthly pension till date and, the second is that by the order impugned dated 13.3.2020 recovery to the tune of Rs.40016.00 has been ordered from his salary as a result of incorrect fixation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for any excess payment on account of wrong fixation the petitioner has not done any misrepresentation or committed fraud. It is also submitted that the order directing recovery of payment without any opportunity of hearing is bad. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) reported in JT 2015 (1) SC 95.

Prima facie, the impugned order appears to be bad and the action of the respondents in not paying any of the post retiral benefits is also illegal.

Admit.

Issue notice. Steps be taken to serve notice upon respondent no.6 within a week.

Ms. Archana Tyagi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 5. She prays for and is granted three weeks time to file a counter affidavit.

List for orders on 15th July, 2020 along with the report regarding status of the pleadings.

Order on Stay Application

Issue notice returnable on 15th July, 2020.

Until further orders, the operation of the impugned order dated 13.3.2020 passed by the Tehsildar, Harraiya District Basti shall remain suspended and an interim mandamus is issued to the respondents to pay petitioner's GPF, gratuity, group insurance, 40% commuted value of the petitioner's pension and his pension, within three weeks next or to show cause by the next date fixed why this interim mandamus may not be made absolute.

Let this order be communicated to the Collector/District Magistrate, Basti, Tehsildar Harraiya District Basti and Additional Director, Treasury & Pension, Basti Regison, Basti by the Joint Registrar (compliance) within 24 hours."

5. A compliance affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third and fourth respondent sworn by the Tehsildar, Harraiya, District Basti dated 25.08.2020. In the compliance affidavit in para-5, it has been asserted that an amount of Rs. 7,06,680/- has been paid to the writ petitioner, post retirement, leave encashment and the writ petitioner has been paid monthly pension from November, 2019 to June, 2020 and entire gratuity amount as well as 40% of the commutation amount has been paid in the bank account of the writ petitioner on 18.06.2020 and the arrears of 7th pay commission has been also concluded by the department and 50% have been paid and 90% GPF amount have been paid.

6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the recovery proceedings could not have been initiated against the writ petitioner, particularly, it is not a case of the respondents that the writ petitioner has practiced fraud, concealment and misrepresentation. He further submits that in case according to the respondent, there was any error then the same could have been corrected while putting to the writ petitioner to notice which has admittedly not been done. He seeks to rely upon the judgment of the State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2014) 8 SCC 883.

7. Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that though it is always open for the employer to make deduction and re-fix the pay or pension in case there is any irregularity but the same is to be proceeded with putting to notice the person who is to be effected. He, however, submits that it is not the the case of the respondent that the writ petitioner had practiced, concealed or misrepresented while getting the said benefits.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

9. The facts are not in issue. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was superannuated on the post of Lekpal on 31.10.2019 and post retirement on 13.03.2020, certain recovery was sought to be made.

10. Importantly, there is no allegation either in the order impugned or in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that there is fraud, concealment and misrepresentation and once the writ petitioner who happens to be a class-III employee being a Lekpal then the recovery in absence of the said ingredients could not have been made. Law in this is well crystallized in umpteen number of decision which obviously includes the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab & Ors.(supra). Thus the order dated 13.03.2020 seeking to make recovery cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The net consequences would be that the writ petitioner is entitled to post retiral benefits.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following terms:

(a) The order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the respondent no. 4, Tehsildar Harraiya District Basti is set aside.

(b) The respondents are directed to continue the entire work by virtue of post retirement became admissible to the writ petitioner to be paid while adjusting the amount already paid.

12. For the said purpose, the writ petitioner shall file a representation/ self attested copy of the writ petition and certified copy of this order, short counter affidavit and compliance affidavit before the respondent no. 4 by 31.10.2025.

13. On the said motion, the fourth respondent shall put to notice the writ petitioner and require inputs if so required so the writ petitioner while issuing a notice and after fixing the date and hearing the writ petitioner passed appropriate orders within a period of three months thereafter.

14. In case, there is any sustainability in the claim of the writ petitioner that he is entitled to interest due to delayed payment then the said aspect is considered in this regard.

15. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

October 17, 2025

A. Prajapati